Funding Level: 23.1%  
  
Narrative   
"1: Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements  
Funds from this category will fund maintenance and improvement projects on local streets and roads and may be used for any eligible transportation purposes as defined under the Act and to comply with the GMP requirements.  
  
The Authority will distribute 23.1 percent of the annual sales tax revenues to all local jurisdictions with a base allocation of $100,000 for each jurisdiction, the balance will be distributed based 50 percent on relative population and 50 percent on road miles for each jurisdiction, subject to compliance with the Authority’s reporting, audit and GMP requirements, consistent with the current Measure J program. Population figures used shall be the most current available from the State Department of Finance. Road mileage shall be from the most current State Controller’s Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads.  
  
Funds shall be used by each jurisdiction to maintain and enhance existing roadway and other transportation facilities. Jurisdictions shall comply with the Authority’s Maintenance of Effort (MOE) policy as well as Implementation Guidelines of this TEP. Local agencies will report on the use of these funds, such as the amount spent on roadway maintenance, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, and other roadway improvements."

Funding Level: 25%-30%  
  
Narrative (partial excerpt)  
"Considering the above, the Board supports the funding levels for local streets and roads (maintenance and improvements) in a new TEP that the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) have taken. Specifically, SWAT at 25%-30%, TRANSPAC at 30%, TRANSPLAN at 30% and WCCTAC at 28%.  
  
This support includes complete streets concepts as detailed below. The Board recognizes the importance of improving and maintaining our local streets and roads for all modes of transportation."

While the distribution formula proposed is consistent with existing policies and the reporting mechanism is consistent with prior BOS input, the difference in proposed funding relative to the need is substantial. Even the higher funding level recommended by the RTPCs would not have addressed the full need.  
  
Several issues magnify the importance of increased maintenance funding, the lack of stability of state funding, and directly related non-pavement roadway maintenance needs. These have been discussed previously at the BOS:  
  
Maintenance Funding: From the 9/15/15 report:  
"While pavement condition data and costs are most frequently reported, the directly related, non-pavement needs exceed the pavement needs. These non-pavement needs are included in this discussion because they are inextricably linked to road maintenance costs and activities. Some of these costs include signage, traffic signal systems, shoulder maintenance, lighting, drainage/stormwater infrastructure (culverts, gutter, hydrauger, etc.), clean water infrastructure requirements, guardrail/crash cushion, sweeping, landscaping, street trees, curb/sidewalk, retaining walls, etc. This is an incomplete list."  
  
These issues have been recently highlighted with the County having to repair several sinkholes in the recent past, one on Hazel Avenue in East Richmond and the other on Marsh Creek Road. The storm drain system is very often, "out of sight, out of mind" but is, nonetheless, an integral asset of the roadway system.   
  
State Transportation Funding: From the 9/15/15 report:  
...the reliability of state revenues is somewhat speculative. This is distinct from local funds which are insulated from being used for other purposes. Local funds are relatively stable for the life of local transportation measures, subject only to the performance of the overall economy. Given the glaring maintenance shortfall that remains even after an assumed increase in local maintenance funds, staff does not consider the potential for increased state maintenance funding and funding reliability as substantially off-setting the need for increases in local maintenance funding.

  
This issue has been highlighted recently with the reduction of gas tax revenues having a disastrous effect on maintenance revenues. Please see Attachment 6: Collapse of Gas Tax 2016 which quantifies and depicts the reductions.   
  
The Board may wish to consider whether, given the competing needs for funding in multiple categories, the proposed allocation is appropriate.

Funding Level: 2.1%  
  
Narrative  
"Transportation for Seniors & People With Disabilities or what is often referred to as “Paratransit” services or Accessible Transportation Services (ATS) can be broadly divided into two categories: (1) services required to be provided by transit operators under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to people functionally unable to ride fixed route service; and (2) services not required by law but necessary for frail seniors and people with disabilities whose needs are beyond the requirements of the ADA (for example, extra hours of service or greater geographic coverage or requirement for service beyond curb-to-curb), or for non-ADA eligible seniors.  
  
Projections indicate that people that would be eligible for these services is the fasts growing segment of our population and will likely (blank) over the next (blank) years.  
  
Funding in this category will be used to fund accessible transportation services. These services shall support both non-ADA and ADA services for eligible participants. To ensure services are delivered in a coordinated system that maximizes both service delivery and efficiency an Accessible Transportation Service (ATS) Strategic Plan will be developed and periodically updated during the term of the measure. No funding under this category will be allocated until the ATS Strategic Plan has been developed and adopted.  
  
An overarching component in the development and delivery of the ATS Strategic Plan is using mobility management to ensure coordination and efficiencies in accessible service delivery. The plan will evaluate the appropriate model for our local structure including how accessible services are delivered by all agencies and where appropriate coordination can improve transportation services, eliminate gaps in service and find efficiencies in the service delivered. The ATS Strategic Plan would also determine the investments and oversight of the program funding and identify timing, projects, service delivery options, administrative structure, and fund leverage opportunities."

From the 11/3/15 BOS Letter re: the TEP  
  
Funding Level: n/a  
  
Narrative  
"1) The TEP should, in addition to providing additional operations funding, fund a countywide mobility management program as recommended in the CCMMP (Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan) . The CCMMP includes preliminary cost figures for implementation which may need to be refined as we move ahead. As implementation progresses, the Board strongly recommends consideration of a transition to the mobility management/brokerage model used in Santa Clara County.  
  
2) Currently, Measure J has eligibility requirements placed on local jurisdictions in order to receive Local Streets & Maintenance funding. As mentioned in the Local Streets and Roads section above, additional requirements are being considered for supplementary maintenance funding. Similar to those requirements, the Board is proposing that eligibility for transit funding under a new TEP be contingent upon participation in the implementation of the mobility management program and other identified improvements to accessible services.  
  
3) Implementing the service model proposed in #1 above is a substantial investment. We believe that the County and Authority Board members would benefit from a tour of the Santa Clara County accessible services operation, OUTREACH. The OUTREACH operation is non-profit based and is a national model for cost-effective procurement, contracting and operations . During a time where our own transit operations show a trend of increasing costs, the OUTREACH model has shown reduced costs . The Board is requesting attendance from Authority members on this tour tentatively scheduled for mid-NovemberDecember.  
  
4) One barrier to progress on this issue is the understandable resistance to any changes in service to a sensitive population. As we move ahead with this effort, an explicit commitment should be made by all agencies involved to insulate current accessible transit customers from service degradations or interruptions."

The narrative and proposed policies in the Draft TEP are largely consistent with County input and look positive.  
  
The "Non-Rail Transit Enhancements" program includes the following qualification: "Recipients of funding under this category are required to participate in the development of the Accessible Transportation Services Strategic Plan included in Category 12. Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities.". This is directly responsive to BOS input to ensure implementation.  
  
The Draft TEP includes a recommendation for a Accessible Transportation Service (ATS) Strategic Plan which is a positive development. Considering our numerous public and private accessible transit providers, migrating to a different system will require a substantial amount of planning, the ATS Strategic Plan will fulfill that. At a recent Authority Board meeting, there was a suggestion that the study should be done in the short term, there is no reason to wait for the TEP process to be completed. The BOS may wish to discuss this option and communicate it's preference.  
  
See Attachment 7: Mobility Matters which was distributed at a recent Authority Special TEP meeting during the Accessible Transit discussion.  
  
The BOS did not weigh in on an appropriate funding level for this program. Now that a figure has been proposed in the Draft TEP the BOS may wish to consider providing input on the amount of funding. The following information is provided to inform that consideration:  
  
1) Demographics  
From 2010 to 2060 the working age (25-64) population will grow 38%. During this same time period the population that will increase demand for accessible transit service will grow as follows, 65-74=125%, 75-84=198%, and 85+=299%. See chart below.  
  
  
  
2) Other Cost Magnifiers  
There are other factors that will magnify the impact of the demographics illustrated above:  
• The consolidation trend in medical facilities and services will result in more trips and longer trips.  
• Expansions of fixed route service funded in the TEP will result in a compulsory expansion of ADA paratransit.  
• An increase in the veterans population.  
  
3) Implications of a New Service Model  
The study and service proposals in the TEP are are likely to improve service efficiency, reduce costs, and attract other funds. However, given the substantial demographics problem mentioned above, the "silver tsunami", these improvements and efficiencies are not likely to completely offset the growth in demand. In addition, the study of and incubation of a new mobility management program will take some investment.  
  
4) RTPC Input  
See chart below comparing RTPC input compared to funding levels in the Draft TEP. The "Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities" program had the largest negative discrepancy between the RTPC "ask" and proposed funding level: RTPC Request: $105M, Draft TEP: $50M.  

Funding Level: 6%  
  
Narrative  
"Funds from this category will be used implement this new Community Development Incentive program, administered by the Authority’s Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPC’s). Funds will be allocated on a competitive basis to transportation projects or programs that promote economic development, job creation and/or housing within established (or planned) transit supportive community centers. Project sponsors must demonstrate that at least 20% of the project is funded from other than local transportation sales tax revenue and the Authority will prioritize funding to projects that demonstrate over 50% funding from other sources. Additional priority will be given to projects where the sponsor can demonstrate that the project supports and facilitates development of housing for all income levels. Working with the RTPCs, the Authority will prepare guidelines and establish overall criteria for the program."  
  

From the 11/3/15 BOS Letter re: the TEP  
Funding Level: n/a  
  
Narrative  
"Improved Land Use Coordination...Initial Ideas on the Funding Allocation Approach: The TEP could allocate a portion of the future funds to a congestion reduction program related to stimulating certain types of new development. Funds for such a program could be used to stimulate certain infill and other development that demonstrates positive impacts on the transportation system, such as reduced demand on the most congested freeways and roads, better utilization of transit, greater off-peak utilization, reduced average commute times, and reduction of out-of-county commute trips. This could take the form of development in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) near transit or other types of development that achieve the demand reduction goal. For Contra Costa County, jobs/housing balance is a key concern. A focus on developing employment centers that would offer well-paying jobs proximate to housing (i.e. priority industrial areas or priority employment areas) could have merit. Stimulating development that establishes well-paying jobs in East County, for example, could reduce strain on Highway 4, offer a far easier commute for East County residents and make better use of prior transportation investments by stimulating the counter commute.  
  
Subject to feasibility studies, demonstration of congestion reduction, and Authority approval, local jurisdictions could request funding for projects that would stimulate development that would reduce congestion. Such investments could include transportation infrastructure (e.g. improvements to transit and roadways in areas targeted for job growth). However, to realize the congestion reduction benefit of the desired development, a broader range of investments could be considered, such as advanced telecommunication/broadband infrastructure, water, sewer, power, impact fee offsets, land assembly, or other investments. The analysis should consider not only the direct growth in jobs (and housing) likely to result from the investment, but also the net growth in jobs (certain jobs such as advanced manufacturing can have relatively high job multipliers).

  
Initial Ideas on the Policy Incentives Approach: The TEP might include additional policy incentives to promote infill and other development that reduces congestion. For example, the TEP could include incentives for local agencies to adopt and implement certain land-use policies such as PDAs, priority industrial areas or priority employment areas, greater density along transit or employment targets. Alternatively, incentives could be linked to certain TEP funding categories. For instance, economic development/jobs-housing balance/congestion reduction goals could be criteria for allocating funding to any competitively awarded pots of funds."

There has been some concern at the Authority Board regarding expenditures indirectly related to transportation. The proposal in the Draft TEP takes an approach that funds a program as suggested by the BOS and others, but also addresses the concerns regarding expenditures.  
  
The draft program is potentially consistent with the BOS input. Because the policy details are deferred to a future date, "...the Authority will prepare guidelines and establish overall criteria..." it is not entirely clear how the program will be structured or administered, though it is envisioned as a competitive grant program managed primarily at the RTPC level.  
  
The BOS input had language requiring a nexus between the funded project and congestion reduction. The TEP proposal includes the following, "...projects or programs that promote economic development, job creation and/or housing within established or (or planned) transit supportive community centers". While this policy will result in congestion reduction as a derivative, the Authority may wish to be more explicit on this point in order to better address the concerns expressed regarding expenditures indirectly relating to transportation. Likewise, staff recommends that the language be adjusted to avoid preventing funding for needed job growth in areas that will substantially reduce congestion, vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions but immediately proximate to transit. The Board may also wish to provide input on the funding amount for the program and discuss other aspects such as how the program should be administered.

  
Draft TEP Language  
Two-thirds of the funds from this program will be used implement projects in the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, consistent with the current Measure J program. These funds will be allocated competitively to projects that improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, serve the greatest number of users and significant destinations, and remove missing segments and existing barriers to walking and bicycling. The review process shall also consider project feasibility and readiness and the differing needs of the sub-regions when identifying projects for funding. Funding available through this program shall be primarily used for the construction, maintenance, and safety or other improvements of bicycle, pedestrian and trail projects. No design, project approval, right-of-way purchase and environmental clearance may only shall be funded as part of a construction project. Planning to identify a preferred alignment for major new bicycle, pedestrian or trail connections may also be funded through this program.  
  
One third of the funds are to be allocated to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) for the development and rehabilitation of paved regional trails. EBRPD is to spend its allocation proportionally in each sub-region, subject to the review and approval of the applicable sub-regional committee, prior to funding allocation by the Authority. The Authority in conjunction with EBRPD will develop a maintenanceof- effort requirement for funds under this category.  
  
Consistent with the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the complete streets policy established in this expenditure plan, project sponsors receiving funding through other funding categories in this Plan shall incorporate, whenever possible, pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facilities into their projects.  
  
Prior Contra Costa County BOS Comment  
Contra Costa County currently has the lowest rate of trips-by-bike rate in the Bay Area according to the MTC . Please consider a strategic approach to developing and prioritizing bicycle project and program activities to reverse this rate to improve the County’s ranking.  
  
One component of that strategic approach could be to further expand and improve the County’s network of separated, Class I trails. These facilities often have a substantial number of users, traveling at varying speeds, on a single path. For example, a “bicycle expressway” could be a separate project in the Iron Horse corridor that would accommodate faster cyclists. This would increase usage, safety, and comfort for both cyclists and pedestrians and merits consideration during development of the TEP.

Staff Comment  
The program largely continues the existing policies. The "bicycle expressway" concept proposed by the BOS could be funded under this program.